Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 08:30:14 AM
http://www.planetgamecube.com/news.cfm?action=item&id=6091
I'm really getting more excited now
Post by: vudu on March 10, 2005, 08:36:00 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 08:48:20 AM
No. I'm sure PGC will have it soon.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 08:59:59 AM
-In a few months the DS's "online" will start, it'll be free and the flagship game is Animal Crossing DS
-The REV will be BW comp with the the GCN, will have Wi-fi out of the box, probably on the same network as the DS and will be using a CPU from IBM code-named Broadway and a GPU from ATI code-named Hollywood
-Also a new Zelda trailer was shown
Post by: couchmonkey on March 10, 2005, 09:12:54 AM
I'm also very happy to hear that both DS and Revolution are going online. I've been waiting a long time for this.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 10, 2005, 09:17:06 AM
Backwards-compatibility is icing on the cake, as now I won't need to find room on my surge protector for the Rev... <_<
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 09:18:45 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 09:29:09 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 09:32:24 AM
It would stand to reason anyone with a GCN game would own a GCN controller.
Post by: ruby_onix on March 10, 2005, 10:15:13 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 10:17:54 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 10, 2005, 10:21:31 AM
Which means I never again want to hear anybody bitch about the Rev being too revolutionary for its own good. You can all shut up.
What I find discouraging is the whole "interactive entertainment" thing. And the whole "online" thing. Dammit. I don't want any of that crap... I just want good games!
Post by: RickPowers on March 10, 2005, 10:26:30 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 10:37:09 AM
I edit the original post so it now links to PGC.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 10:37:44 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 10, 2005, 10:41:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RickPowers
I don't know why people are assuming that the GameCube controller will be compatible or even necessary to play games on the Revolution, and I'm not sure why we have it in our story. Seems like a poor assumption to me. There could be a whole new controller, but as long as it had at least as many buttons as the GameCube one, every game should be playable.
I was just about to mention the reference in the planetgamecube article that says we will be able to use Cube controllers. I think it is a bad idea for Nintendo to use the GameCube controller on the Revolution. It is like endorsing a criticism of the Revolution controller. I see no reason why the Revolution controller won't be able to play GameCube games. It would be like saying you would rather use an N64 controller to play the Master Quest.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 10:49:53 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2005, 11:11:13 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 10, 2005, 11:17:17 AM
Anyways, that is a small issue, and an issue for us gamecube owners already (few exceptions noted). I think talking about WiFi is a much more important issue. Do I have to have a wireless router to play LAN? Can I just place my REV a relative distance away from my friends and play like the DS does now? What about hooking up to the "Nintendo Live"? Will Super Smash Bros. LAN ever be released?
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 10, 2005, 11:24:45 AM
Quote
If the Rev is too different to play Cube games without the need for the old controllers then it makes no sense to even include backwards compatibility.
Why? Don't a majority of GC owners have a GC controller?
Post by: Famicom on March 10, 2005, 11:32:01 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 11:33:59 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 10, 2005, 11:41:12 AM
It seems very likely to me, but the first step must be allowing the REV controllers to play GC games.
Post by: odifiend on March 10, 2005, 12:13:04 PM
Post by: RickPowers on March 10, 2005, 12:36:14 PM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on March 10, 2005, 12:53:46 PM
Post by: RickPowers on March 10, 2005, 03:42:46 PM
And people said I don't hint around anymore ...
Post by: Noble~Feather on March 10, 2005, 04:13:11 PM
Post by: mjbd on March 10, 2005, 05:31:28 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 10, 2005, 06:14:11 PM
Post by: Artimus on March 10, 2005, 07:38:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mjbd
How is Nintendo going to use WiFi for home console purposes?
All you have to do is plug your ethernet cord into a wireless router. It costs about the same price as a network adapter for any of the current systems. Really simple. You have to set it up with your PC and such, but that's not hard.
The biggest advantage is that you don't have to run a wire from your Rev to your modem/pc. Very useful.
Post by: Nosferat2 on March 10, 2005, 07:46:09 PM
Sorry had to vent. Im very happy with Nintendo. All i need now is an anouncement of Metroid Prime 3: Revolution.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 10, 2005, 07:52:52 PM
Post by: Nosferat2 on March 10, 2005, 07:55:31 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 10, 2005, 07:58:03 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 10, 2005, 08:09:25 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 10, 2005, 08:25:44 PM
ToS is the best RPG ever.
Post by: Grant10k on March 11, 2005, 12:31:53 AM
Quote
Well, there is no currently stated reason why they couldn't [use the same GC ports on the revo]. However, I would say that it depends on how much data Nintendo would need to have the new controllers send to the console and vice-versa. If it's as low as GameCube, then they could probably stick with the current controller ports. However, there is information out there that suggests that the Revolution controllers might need much higher throughput than that.
It wouldn't be hard at all to make a high speed port that can accept the GC's low speed controller data, USB 1.1 is crazy-slow but the faster USB 2 uses all the same port and all the same cables. You can even plug a HighSpeed device into an old USB 1.1 port, windows will yell at you if you do, but it still works.
It would be just the same as plugging a Gameboy game into a GBA, Nintendo will probably stick a chunk of plastic somewhere so you can't plug a Revo Controller/Glove/Gyrosensor/Brainscanner into the GC.
Post by: slingshot on March 11, 2005, 03:11:41 AM
no need to learn new button functions. AND, the rev IS revolutionary IN the way it is played. It isn't about adding a new
button- like every new controller seemed to do after the first NES. Think about it like this- designers design games for
systems knowing the controller- A controller is a HUGE part of a new system. If Nint made a new system that employed a
controller DESIGNED to play old games, then the system would already be outdate before the release.
NIN offers the best of all worlds here! BW compat, you can use the same old crusty controller to play your games EXACTLY
as you always have, (NOTHING NEW TO BUY, or LEARN) AND you get a new revolutionary controller! WINwinWIN!
Post by: KDR_11k on March 11, 2005, 03:41:18 AM
Nosferat: Oh the irony of mentioning Wizardry and Final Fantasy in one sentence...
Slingshot: NIN is Nine Inch Nails.
You know, plugging a GC controler into the Rev to play GC games might have more reasons than the Rev controller not being able or ideal for playing GC games. There is a reason people demand to see foreign movies and series in their original language with subtitles if needed even though dubbing seems to be easier for them to understand.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 11, 2005, 03:46:56 AM
Well, yeah. I wasn't including PC in the equation.
I played Torment for a while and lost the disc.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 11, 2005, 05:34:22 AM
It's funny how you guys are still skeptical even after that statement was made. So many rumors and ideas must still be lodged into your head to even think that the REV won't play GC games right out the box. Just look at this statement as "The REV can play conventional games" as well as being backwards compatible. Great news all around. The only question un-answered is can you use GC controllers for GC games like the PSone can on the PS2? That is a moot point, nothing insightful will be revealed regardless of the answer (though it would be nice to use the Wave-Bird). Plus, I'm sure everyone will have 4 controllers by the time SSB comes out; so using your GC controllers for GC multiplayer games will come down to preference only.
EDIT: Thanks alot Rick for making me feel like an idiot. YOUR MOOT!
Post by: RickPowers on March 11, 2005, 06:43:18 AM
OK, back on topic. I personally think that Nintendo is going to protect their revenue stream for accessories by NOT allowing GameCube peripherals to be used. I'd certainly like for them to prove me wrong, however.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 11, 2005, 06:45:29 AM
Post by: Talon on March 11, 2005, 07:24:54 AM
Quote
Wouldn't it expand their accessory sales to have people use two seperate controllers?
Well depends, if the same group of people that bought the gamecube bought the revolution and only them then the accessory sales would be less as no one would buy extra revolution controllers.
On the other hand I see it this way if Revolution can use the gamecube controller, it allows Nintendo to really change their controller design because they already have the gamecube controller for your standard platformers, rpgs...etc.
Either way I dont care, Revolution could be Virtual Boy Mach 2 and I'd probably still buy it and Im sure most of the people on this forum would to.
Post by: Nosferat2 on March 11, 2005, 09:11:45 AM
You ask whats the logic behind whether not a system is backward compatible in buying a next gen. Well i will tell you why at least for my case anyway.
What happens when i fell like playing my GC games when the REV comes out and it cant play GC games?? Think about it. I would have to do the same thing that i do when i want to play my NES and SNES games. That is getting the respective systems out of storage, out the box, disconnecting my GC and then connecting my NES or SNES back up then play the games i wanna play.
Now that may not seem like too much of a pain in the butt, but when you got a fully integrated system, with the GC connected to the rest of the HOme entertainment/surround sound system, it amounts to a hassle. Especially considering the amount of equipment i have to move to get to the wires in the back of my reciever and TV to hook the stuff up.
OR i could connect both systems up, but really come on, Nintendo already has a bad image amoungst the non Nintendo gamers, so how would it look when i have both systems hooked up when Xbox2 and PS2/3 owners only need to install one to play all their games. They will have a field day with that one.
Plus who in the world wants to have multiple systems cluttering their Enterainment systems? Its unsightly and takes too much space. I for one wont have systems laying around all over the floor because they dont fit in my entertainment stand. Also there would be more wires to hook up, which makes for more of a cluster f%*& when added to the wires of the Cable box, DVD, TV, GC and stereo stereo system.
I dont even think i have enough auxillary hook ups to even hook both up "IF" i wanted to. That means i would have to connect both into the same Aux line which will deterioate the signals, which i will not allow.
So Bill tell me why i should i have to do or deal with all of the above when:
1. Nintendo can easily make the REV backward compatible(they have geniuses and a GC emulator is easy to add)
2. Nintendo makes their handhelds backwards compatible(EVEN THE DS with gameboy games!!) so tell me the logic of not making their "revolutionary" new system not backward compatible. On a side note i think Nintendo should make the Rev compatible with Gameboy and DS games too. It will make the REV more marketable, which neither the new PS or the Xbox would be able to compete with in this particular respect. The game library will be astronomical.
3. Nintendos competitors have this feature. Now im loyal but if Nintendo didnt add this feature i would have bought and Xbox out of spite. If Nintendo didnt consider their "loyal" consumers in this respect i would feel that they are inconsiderate. I will be playing Resident Evil's, Metroid Prime's and Zelda's for years to come along with my other 25 GC games. And if i have to go thru the situations discribed above im going to have a sour taste in my mouth and as a result im going to have to go with the XBox just to spite Nintendo, and i dont think i wll ever look back to NIntendo. But thank god it did nt have to come to that. Ill be able to have my REV and play the both REV and GC games. The beauty of that, and i wont have to ever get the gamecube out of storage or waste time hooking it up, cause all i have to do is put my Resident Evil 4 into my Rev and play.....
Enough said. There is the logic in my eyes Bill.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 11, 2005, 09:29:32 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 11, 2005, 10:40:07 AM
Quote
On the other hand I see it this way if Revolution can use the gamecube controller, it allows Nintendo to really change their controller design because they already have the gamecube controller for your standard platformers, rpgs...etc.
See this is what I mean, I'd rather have nintendo feel free to innovate with their new control scheme.
This way the REV controller wouldn't have to worry about being able to do what the GC controller does and nintendo can really innovate.
Post by: The Omen on March 11, 2005, 01:54:19 PM
Quote
What I find discouraging is the whole "interactive entertainment" thing. And the whole "online" thing. Dammit. I don't want any of that crap... I just want good games!
So, great games will still be available on the system. How does it prevent that from happening? Unless I missed the press release where Nintendo stated " The Revolution will have horrible games that will be online only and play movies at the same time"
I think it's great news...hopefullly they'll get those Dev Kits out soon...
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 11, 2005, 02:52:58 PM
Announcing backwards compatibility with Gamecube is the singe BEST thing they could do with the Revolution. The PS2 didn't only sell so well because it was out sooner. People (especially the casual gamer) are much more likely to pick up a system if it can do the work of two systems. That's another reason that all the Gameboys, as well as the DS sell so well.
People hearing this, who don't own a Gamecube, will say to themselves, "Well, now I can get two systems for the price of one." and go out and buy it. Kudos to Nintendo for such a strategic marketing maneuver.
Post by: Bloodworth on March 11, 2005, 03:15:57 PM
Now for WiFi, I really have to wonder about the details. Is it not going to have an Ethernet port? Are you going to need a wireless router to play at home? Or is Nintendo's "infrastructure" completely out of left field?
I've had the feeling for quite some time that Nintendo may somehow be trying to bring online gaming to people who can't afford a monthly Internet bill. I have no idea how it's technically possible, but seriously, what's the advantage of having WiFi on a device that stays in your entertainment center? I have a hard time believing it's just to keep people from running an extra cable through the house. Bringing online gaming to players without an ISP -- now that just might be revolutionary.
Post by: Savior on March 11, 2005, 03:48:43 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 11, 2005, 10:08:15 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 11, 2005, 10:32:02 PM
No, actually, you missed the press release where Nintendo stated "we're not concentrating on just making great games anymore, there are unrelated stupid things we're dabbling in that are diverting our time, money, manpower and attention."
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on March 12, 2005, 02:56:04 AM
Quote
I think a safer bet would be connecting to DS or the new GB wirelessly.
Shhhh!! there is no new GB (we can't let this rumor spread about. an eb games manager tried to tell me that nintendo canned all online plans for DS and is releasing the GB by the years end. shtuff like that is really damaging the DS' mindshare.)
Post by: The Omen on March 12, 2005, 04:02:04 AM
Quote
No, actually, you missed the press release where Nintendo stated "we're not concentrating on just making great games anymore, there are unrelated stupid things we're dabbling in that are diverting our time, money, manpower and attention."
I hardly think an expanding vision will cause a work stoppage at Nintendo.
Why are people so against more options? Having great games AND more options is the only way to increase market share. The competition must be met.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 12, 2005, 09:26:47 AM
Work won't stop, but some work will be diverted from games to something else. And I'm against anything that means less work is being done on games.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 12, 2005, 11:03:52 AM
Post by: Savior on March 12, 2005, 03:39:09 PM
Quote
just making great games anymore, there are unrelated stupid things we're dabbling in that are diverting our time, money, manpower and attention."
AKA Nintendo Animation Studio
Post by: Caillan on March 12, 2005, 03:48:11 PM
Quote
AKA Nintendo Animation Studio
The animation studio will be set up using lots of money. I doubt any existing employees of the gaming division will be transferred. If anything, the animation guys may will be able to produce quality intros/endings/Final Fantasy games for EAD or whoever.
AFAIK, a dedicated team is usually set up to implement online gaming towards the end of a project. Level designers and artists won't be distracted by it.
Post by: ruby_onix on March 12, 2005, 05:26:32 PM
Quote
SgtShiversBen wrote:
Why can't Nintendo just use the same plug for both controllers? Wouldn't that be kinda feasible? Maybe, I don't know. But that's what I assumed. They'd still get the REVOLUTIONARY controllers for the new console, and keep the GameCube controllers too.
Quote
Iwata wrote:
We put four control ports on our consoles .. and then made our controllers wireless.
also:
First, contrary to much speculation, I can announce today that Revolution will be backward compatible. The best of the Nintendo GameCube library will still be enjoyed by players years from now. Second, as I said earlier, we intend to incorporate wireless technology in all we do.
I'd guess that the Rev will use wireless controllers (or Power Gloves, or whatever you want to guess they might be, but they'll be wireless), and that the Rev will be backwards compatible with the Wavebird, without the need for you to physically plug the Wavebird's "receiver unit" into anything. There will just be a "wireless hub" of some sort in the Rev, and the Wavebird's signal will be child's play to it. Actually, I'm hoping you'll be able to hook about 16 Wavebirds up to it without any trouble. That'd rock.
Post by: Gamefreak on March 13, 2005, 02:11:14 AM
For example, we know it will connect to a computer monitor and a wireless router.
But will it be able to connect to Wavebirds (making BW compatibility for 4 player games easy), and more importantly, automatically connect to nearby Rev's for wireless LAN play? This is important because LAN play eliminates lag, and also made more important by the fact that rev's can hook up to monitors.
Ask yourself. How many monitors + TV's do you have in your house? I've gotten a dozen or so. That means that if every one of my friends just brought their little revolution and a copy of Mario Kart or Timespliters we could basically get 8+ player games set up in about a minute. Just connect to a tv/monitor anywhere in the house and you're good to go.
Also, Rev games will simply look better on a monitor than a regular TV since any monitor can play in HDTV resolutions.
Post by: nickmitch on March 13, 2005, 04:20:50 PM
Post by: RickPowers on March 14, 2005, 08:55:38 AM
I wonder, was he talking about removing the "tether" between the player and the controller, the controller and the console (which they've already done), the console and the TV, or all of the above???
Post by: Morales on March 14, 2005, 09:47:19 AM
Post by: RickPowers on March 14, 2005, 11:41:27 AM
Sony has a device for their HandyCams that sends video wirelessly to a receiver (which stays permanently connected to the TV) over infrared. So the technology exists, and has for quite some time. There are also RF transmitters based on similar ideas.
Finally ... who's to say Revolution would need to connect to a TV screen at all?
There's a lot of options. Heck, even needing a power cord at all times is no longer a given ... there was a battery pack for the GameCube released by third-parties. A completely wireless console is certainly doable, but I'm not sure this is the direction Nintendo is going. It's fun to talk about, though.
Post by: Savior on March 14, 2005, 11:52:25 AM
Post by: Grant10k on March 14, 2005, 05:52:14 PM
Removing the tether between controller and console is easy. Hell, I have an electric shaver that you never have to plug in, it has half of a transformer in the shaver body and the other half in a little 'base station' if you will, and when they are near each other it recharges the shaver's batterys (this way it's compleatly waterproof). They could do that with the rev controllers so you don't have to plug them in, ever, or even change the batteries for that matter.
As for removing the tether between the player and the controller, that's not hard to do eather, you could simply put fair sized copper plates on the handles of the controller and randomly send a couple thousand volts between them. If that dosn't remove the player/controller tether; nothing will.
Post by: BigJim on March 15, 2005, 10:00:19 AM
Does this tech have the bandwidth to transmit what will essentially be high-def games? No idea. Probably not. If it can, it's probably not worth the cost.
Very interesting Reggie quote, though. Revolution could be small and sexy enough to be semi-portable, not unlike GameCube. Think top-loading Mac Mini.
Wireless controllers = no controller ports = smaller size.
One proprietary AV-out port could provide the feed for all possible A/V connections (include the RCA cable, but allow us to buy other outputs as an option) = smaller size
Put the memory cards in the controllers. If not using a 2-way R/F signal, they could incorporate Wi-Fi into the controllers? = no card slots = smaller size
Post by: JonLeung on March 15, 2005, 05:24:32 PM
Post by: Morales on March 15, 2005, 06:38:41 PM
Post by: slingshot on March 16, 2005, 03:05:21 AM
Post by: Chode2234 on March 16, 2005, 08:48:11 AM
Is it me or are they picking up a lot of momentum? To quote a famous Japanese Admiral (Yamamoto), "all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."
Post by: ruby_onix on March 16, 2005, 01:05:46 PM
It was said (back in the SNES days) that Nintendo had known full well about the limited lifespans of console generations, and about the need for a "generation hop", from one console to the next (something they pioneered with the SNES). It was also said that they understood the concept of "backwards compatibility".
Between one console and the next, there's a sharp downward drop (as one console dies), followed by a slow upward climb (as the next one takes off). If you try to compress the timeframe of that gap, you risk killing the older console abruptly, or choking the life out of the newer one.
But with backwards compatibility you create a link between the two. It rounds out the sharpest part of the drop. Games for the older console keep selling, because developers know it's still "safe" to make them. The newer console has an advantage at launch, because the older still-playable games can help with the inevitable "launch drought" of software.
The "rounding" effect is only temporary (for the most part), but it applies to an extremely needy timeframe (the sharp drop), and any advantage a console gets early on seems to pay off in multiples when it really "takes off" ahead of schedule.
However, Nintendo deliberately sacrificed that advantage with the NES/SNES gap, because they felt that using an NES-compatible cart slot would've crippled the SNES's storage capabilities. Also, they didn't have to worry about Sega (being a newcomer) having the B/C advantage without them.
For the SNES/N64 leap, Nintendo knew that their storage situation was weak, and clearly couldn't afford to make it worse with SNES-compatibility. Also, their competitors (Saturn and PlayStation) were going with CD, so Nintendo again didn't have to worry about them having backwards compatibility. And yeah, it goes without saying here that sticking with carts was the biggest mistake Nintendo ever made. They knew that carts were weak. And if they had looked just one move ahead, they would've seen that they were literally handing their competitors the known advantage that they "weren't worrying about", with no possible way to level the field.
With the Dreamcast, Sega didn't have Saturn-compatibility. Because... they're Sega. What did you expect? Sony did have it. Sony got the "rounding effect". The PSone has been deified for it's success. The PS2 had a spectacular launch, even though it's games were sucky and few. Nintendo didn't have it with the GameCube. Because they went with carts for the N64.
Nintendo did pioneer backwards compatibility with it's entire GameBoy line, and the results taught the entire world how it's done.
BTW, it's also interesting to note that Nintendo appears to have successfully compressed the timeframe of the console gap between the GBA and the DS, overlapping the two lines, in order to take away the "timing" advantage of the PSP, through the "three pillars" strategy that nobody seems to be able to understand.
Post by: pitbull on March 19, 2005, 10:57:57 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 19, 2005, 11:44:41 AM
Post by: BigJim on April 04, 2005, 07:29:57 AM
Reggie quote: ""The old model of a person tethered to a game control tethered to a device tethered to a TV is over."
This I found this today: NEC’s Palm-Sized HDTV Transceiver
NEC made a device that can transmit an HD video signal wirelessly. Interesting.
Not that this is solid evidence to Reggie's quote. But it was an interesting find, since NEC was a GameCube partner. At least the technology is feasible, if nothing else.
Discuss. Or not.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 04, 2005, 07:56:14 AM
At first I didn't think it feasible without degrading the quality, but if they can transfer HDTV signals, there's no problem for RCA or even DVI signal transfers. Sounds to good to be true.
I don't really see the reason of making it all wireless. If this is true, then it's going to sit right next to my couch, but that would be the only reason I have it wireless. Am I missing something critical, that only a wireless console could provide?
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 04, 2005, 08:57:12 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 04, 2005, 10:25:07 AM
Finally, the last obstacle to laziness obliterated.
Post by: BigJim on April 05, 2005, 12:56:42 AM
All we'd need next is a system with a disc magazine that stores about 20 games. Then TRULY we have become lazy.
Seems a bit excessive, even for a system that's a year and a half away. But it was an interesting find.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on April 05, 2005, 01:05:32 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 05, 2005, 08:35:27 AM
So for every TV, you'd have to by another attachment for that TV.
I like the fact that it's wireless, but it really doesn't have that strong of a point for being wireless.
Post by: wandering on April 06, 2005, 11:06:33 AM
Imagine. You have 4 players. You say, 'okay, you go to the TV in the bedroom, you go to the TV in the dining room, you go to the TV in the living room, I'll go to the TV in the basement.' You give each player a Revolution controller. They each plug their controller into their TV (like the patent on the 'let's talk controller' thread suggests).
You take your Revolution and your controller out, plug your revolution into a power outlet, and turn the Revolution on (no need to plug your controller in anywhere, your TV already has a REV receiver). You select 'LAN game' from the in-game menu. Nothing else to plug in, nothing else to configure. In the level-select screen, you see 3 other hand-cursors moving around. You all select a level, and the game starts, in glorious full screen.
Gaming heaven.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 06, 2005, 01:23:02 PM
I didn't think of adding the controller tech to the rev tech....way to think outside the box, my friend!
And to opinionate all over you comment hehe. That would be sooo super sweet. If it worked without a hitch, I could see that being a selling point. I've always wanted to play split-screen games on a tv of my own, but never wanted to carry my stuff, hook it up, and set it up with a router and everything, just for a round or two. That would eliminate that problem. It's possibilities could go even further. Imagine bringing over your controllers, so the other 4 friends of yours can play....all from one system! That would indeed be gaming heaven.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 06, 2005, 10:48:44 PM
Post by: ThePerm on April 06, 2005, 11:06:36 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on April 07, 2005, 06:56:46 AM
Post by: BigJim on April 07, 2005, 08:49:42 AM
Post by: wandering on April 07, 2005, 08:51:53 AM
Granted, it's all really far fetched. The REV would have to be able to a) transmit high-quality video wirelessly across great distances b) have the power to transmit video to multiple sources AND c) the REV's advanced new controller would have to be able to transmit wirelessly to the REV right out of the box.
Personally, I'd be happy with just wireless, painless, set-up free LAN, even if you needed multiple revolutions and needed to plug controllers into consoles and consoles into TVs.
But this is much cooler.
edit: BigJim beat me to it.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 07, 2005, 11:19:06 AM
As KDR explained, it would need a higher and faster bandwidth. However, if the NEC product doesn't use WiFi, and maybe something faster like RF or something...then maybe, just maybe it could be possible.
